Lausten,
You do a good side step for a Christian.
And a lot of this does seem silly to me. I am a great grandfather so I do some times have generation communication issues. I find this web site helps me learn better communication skills, even though I still have a long ways to go and that I will never reach the level of most of the posters on this site.
I know that to answer the question requires you to declare your views on god and I can understand you not wanting to do this or you’re not at that point in your life.
Let’s work together and work on the thought of your post.
[The question of you is, if you don’t think “god is not real" is the right place to start, then where should we?]
I am seeing two beliefs by the Christians. All Christians believe in the “Power of God". But not all Christians believe in the Deity of God.
The atheist is saying the Power of God is real.
The atheist is saying the Deity of God is man made.
If the Atheist says they do not believe in god. They are wrong. Because they do believe there is the Power of God.
The Atheist should say - No, I do not believe that the supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe does exist.
This way the Atheist addresses the Deity and does not step on the Power of God.
Do you agree?
I thought you said you don’t have time for semantic games? What you are calling the “Power of God" is the societal forces that make up how religion works and how the power structures of it are used, etc. You may also be touching on the desires we all have for connectedness but I’m not sure about that.
So when you say something like, “If the Atheist says they do not believe in god. They are wrong." You are playing semantic games. Because atheists are using the words as they are commonly used. I’m not going to do definitions with you because I’ve read enough of your posts to know you will just go round in circles with them.
The “power of God" rests on his existence, regardless of whether you think of him as a bearded guy or white light. Likewise everyone has a different reason for believing. Some saw Jesus in a dream, others felt something during a Christmas sermon, others got it on a hike. What matters is none of them examined the experience and understood it was just an experience and not something that connected them to powers that don’t exist. Unless you count the power to be manipulated into dropping 20 bucks into a collection plate every Sunday.
I thought you said you don’t have time for semantic games? What you are calling the “Power of God" is the societal forces that make up how religion works and how the power structures of it are used, etc. You may also be touching on the desires we all have for connectedness but I’m not sure about that.
The results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
The math is looking like 75% of Americans are Christians and that 59% of those Christians do not believe in Creation.
So how can they be Christians?
I think they believe in “The Power of God".
So when you say something like, “If the Atheist says they do not believe in god. They are wrong." You are playing semantic games. Because atheists are using the words as they are commonly used. I’m not going to do definitions with you because I’ve read enough of your posts to know you will just go round in circles with them.
You need to read more of the posts. Example: Write4U Post #190 “Truer words were never spoken. History is filled with examples of “the power of god"."
What I am seeing is that when the atheist views the Christian belief more closely they can see it is not always about the Deity and they do recognize there is the “Power of God".
The “power of God" rests on his existence, regardless of whether you think of him as a bearded guy or white light. Likewise everyone has a different reason for believing. Some saw Jesus in a dream, others felt something during a Christmas sermon, others got it on a hike. What matters is none of them examined the experience and understood it was just an experience and not something that connected them to powers that don’t exist. Unless you count the power to be manipulated into dropping 20 bucks into a collection plate every Sunday.
Yes, Yes and Yes, we agree except on his existence. If you believe the earth is 12,000 years old and the whole story of creation then you have the bible’s deity. Otherwise you have the Power of God.
And it has been agreed that Christmas is not all about Santa Claus, but Santa Claus is about Christmas. I doubt you can tell me any personal facts or information about Santa Claus, you might know more about Rudolph the red nose reindeer than Santa Claus.
The same with God. The bible is not so much about the Deity of God as it is about the Power of God.
And that is where I find that if the Atheist takes a close look at this issue. The Atheist will agree there is a Power of God but they do not believe in the deity.
Deity
- god or goddess
a god, goddess, or other being regarded as divine.
Where we differ.
What I am understanding you to say is that like Christmas is based upon Santa Claus and you can’t have Christmas without Santa Claus.
What I am saying is that the towns and people do not celebrate Santa Claus, they celebrate the spirit of Christmas. And Christmas is celebrate by many people who believe in the spirit of Christmas and do not believe that Santa Claus existed. Ask these people “Do you believe and celebrate Christmas?" And they will say “Yes". Ask the same people “Do you believe in Santa Claus?" And they will say “No".
The circle is broken. This is not semantic games.
Power.
I think you see power as some thing that is transmitted from God.
I see power as part of the makeup of mankind, like love and hurt.
What I am understanding you to sayYou are not understanding me at all, and you aren't trying. You are having a conversation with yourself. When I said, "the power of God rests in his existence", I should have said, "the power of God rests in BELIEF in his existence", but other than that, I think I've been clear. Why you think I'm a Christian, I don't know. You are responding like a poorly written computer program.
You have failed to answer most of the questions.
Please, make your point clear by answering all the questions.
Otherwise you leave me guessing at the unanswered parts which happen to be the most important part of the subject.
Your statement “the power of God rests in his existence" does not explain why 59% of Christians do not believe in Creation! If you believe in the Deity would you not have to believe in Creation?
I think your statement is wrong. I think the power of God is in the contract for after life. If 59% do not believe in Creation, then they must believe the contract exists with Jesus and not the Creator.
Where are the Deity’s in Buddha and Hindu religions?
As it turns out you are the one playing semantic with the power of god.
[Why you think I’m a Christian, I don’t know.]
Did you not say in 2009 in a blog that you considered yourself a Christian? Or did I misread the post, if I did then I apologize, sorry.
Wow, awesome research, but like most things you talk about, you only scratched the surface then made up the rest to fit your own ideas. I’m not going to let you control this conversation and tell me what questions I must answer, and I’ve told you why above.
If you read my blog, winter60.blogspot.com that might help. I’d give you a link but CFI is spam filtering me for some reason
You might go to the personal mail section or send him an e-mail.
Occam
Does the power of unicorns rest on belief in their existence? Neither unicorns nor gods have power. Belief has power. We know belief has the power to destroy. Whether it has power to do good has never been demonstrated. LoisWhat I am understanding you to sayYou are not understanding me at all, and you aren't trying. You are having a conversation with yourself. When I said, "the power of God rests in his existence", I should have said, "the power of God rests in BELIEF in his existence", but other than that, I think I've been clear. Why you think I'm a Christian, I don't know. You are responding like a poorly written computer program.
Does the power of unicorns rest on belief in their existence? Neither unicorns nor gods have power. Belief has power. We know belief has the power to destroy. Whether it has power to do good has never been demonstrated. Lois Belief has power that can be used for both bad and good. Just ask any of the several 1000 of us who were helped by catholic charities and the various religious sonsered food banks here in Buffalo when the local steel industry left in the 70s. These were created by those who were putting their xtian beliefs to good ends.What I am understanding you to sayYou are not understanding me at all, and you aren't trying. You are having a conversation with yourself. When I said, "the power of God rests in his existence", I should have said, "the power of God rests in BELIEF in his existence", but other than that, I think I've been clear. Why you think I'm a Christian, I don't know. You are responding like a poorly written computer program.
Does the power of unicorns rest on belief in their existence? Neither unicorns nor gods have power. Belief has power. We know belief has the power to destroy. Whether it has power to do good has never been demonstrated. Lois Belief has power that can be used for both bad and good. Just ask any of the several 1000 of us who were helped by catholic charities and the various religious sonsered food banks here in Buffalo when the local steel industry left in the 70s. These were created by those who were putting their xtian beliefs to good ends. They just believed it was xtian power, but really the unicorn power made them do it.What I am understanding you to sayYou are not understanding me at all, and you aren't trying. You are having a conversation with yourself. When I said, "the power of God rests in his existence", I should have said, "the power of God rests in BELIEF in his existence", but other than that, I think I've been clear. Why you think I'm a Christian, I don't know. You are responding like a poorly written computer program.
Summary Log of Step One.
Post #0 Point - Wikipedia, God - an object of faith.
Post 2. Definition of “theist".
Post 3. Lack a belief in any god. Over thinking problem.
Post 4. Faith doesn’t rely on objective evidence.
Post 5 - 8. An atheist has no faith in god as defined by theologians.
Post 9. Dictionary vs. Wikipedia meaning.
Post 16. Can deductive reasoning play a role in faith?
Post 17. If the conceptualization of God evolves.
Post 19. So, is the need for God in our DNA.
Post 21. Mike you are getting tangled up in semantics.
Post 29. According to Dr. Terence Meaden,
Post 31. Does religion have positive value?
Post 33. Religions tend to have elements of superstition.
Post 34. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in any god or gods.
Post 38. So there lies the problem in the definition of god.
Post 49. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. That’s it.
Post 50. “The supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe."
Post 60. Presupposing.
Post 63. Atheist - A person who believes that the supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe does not exist.
Post 75. The arguments of Atheists against dualistic conceptualizations of God, is like 5th graders badgering 3rd graders about their lack of education.
Post 82. It is not dualistic conceptualization in the presence of Gnostic thought.
Post 87. One who rejects all gods and all faith. It’s that simple.
Post 91. brmckay; Sort of agreeing with you, at least I think so.
Post 92. Definition of god.
Post 98. Religious DNA.
Post 102. Atheist - anyone who proposes the position of their absence of belief in theistic principles or claims of truth about the world based precisely on them because the support for such beliefs do not provide sufficient evidence to justify their claims either directly or indirectly.
Post 105. The ubiquity of religiosity across the world, and across human history and even, seemingly, prehistory, suggests the possibility of something being in play beyond just memes.
Post 111. The origins of religion is identical to the origins of knowledge and wisdom itself.
Post 131. Man has always needed a god; even before he needed pottery he had gods.
I do not claim there is a god, but I do claim that the metaphysical condition exists. And if god is a metaphysical condition then there has to be a clear understanding of what god is or we will not be able to separate the metaphysical conditions that are not god with out great difficulty.
Post 138. I think that questioning definitions of labels is important. I always thought of myself as equally “atheistic" as my cat. I was surprised to discover that many atheists actually disagree with this because they felt that you would have to have the conscious recognition of the religious perspective first.
Post 149. Define God, then we can talk. To identify God as a creative force is vague and tells us nothing.
Post 153. Christians do not like the subject of defining “god", because it makes them think and acknowledge there are other gods in the world today, which is against their belief.
Post 155. July 1st. “Atheism is a LACK of belief in (a) god or deity".
Post 168. Dr. Terence Meaden pointed out that it was not the use of the word “Belief" at all. It was the use of the word “God".
Post 171. Atheism is a human construct, a position on an idea. It has multiple dimensions: intellectual, social and personal at least. Many movement atheists say that strong atheism is a strong positive assertion that “there is no god!" I think that’s a silly position to take, and a self-contradictory one if one of its main launching points is that there isn’t any proof that a god exists. Still, many atheists take that view, and we can hardly deny that they are without a belief in any god.
Post 178. July 15th, Ok. i can accept that.
Summary Log of Step Two July 15th up to July 23, 2013
Post 179. the meaning of the word “GOD" has changed. God does exist.
Post 180. It’s the power of human imagination, not god.
Post 183. There is a name for this phenomena where thought can create a being, which takes on a life of its own. These entities (demons) are rumored come by various names and exist for those who believe in them. Just like God being created by belief.
Post 186. They are all man made conceptualizations. You believe in one, you concede the existence of all the others.
Post 187. You conclude that God has power because the changes in society are affected by the belief; but you transferred this belief into a real physical existence of what people interpret the belief to imply.
Post 188. it is wrong for atheists to ignore the “power of god".
Post 189. Rational understanding is a very slow process.
Post 191. Even the most liberal believers tend to believe that there exists something real to it—not just some practical application of positive thinking to get through life. It’s delusional and can be very dangerous.
Post 194. The problem is not that atheists try to point this out, the problem is very few people examine their own beliefs.
Post 207. Neither unicorns nor gods have power. Belief has power.
Post 208. Belief has power that can be used for both bad and good.
HELP!
This posting is at a point where it needs a summarization by a skilled wordsmith, which I am not. I welcome all help and team work.
My method is coffee shop talk, or to tell it in a story. Not the deep scientific thought and communication method most form members use.
Started this posting because I saw trouble with the term “Atheist" and how the communication of thoughts between the websites has been having trouble and going around in circles and getting stuck in the mud over the meaning.
The goal or mission statement of the post would be for CFI to come to a consensus that we think is the proper wording that will translate the thought of the Atheist’s to the Christians and be able to post on Wikipedia for all to use. Note, I have not checked yet to see if CFI would want to post on Wikipedia, if not we can still post ourselves.
These are not my ideas; I am learning myself as this posting has grown.
Step One. Explain the problem.
This took from June 1st to July 15th.
Step Two started on July 15th. Without going though step one, step two would have created total confusion. As step one explained that Atheists do not believe in god. Step two has to explain that Atheists do believe in god (the POWER OF GOD). As step one covered the “Belief" part of Atheist belief, step two will cover the “God" part of Atheist belief.
To help clear things up; today over half the Christians do not believe in “Creation". They have move god from the Deity to Jesus by claiming they are one and the same. By not believing in “Creation" makes the majority of Christians thinking along some of Atheist lines of thought.
On the Atheist side of things, they are seeing that when the Atheist takes a hard look at religion, they are seeing that god exists in a form of “POWER" and not as a “DEITY" with most Christians today. And that “POWER" does exist, therefore the Atheist statement that “Atheists do not believe in God" or “That God does not exists" is wrong.
Even if I wanted to do that, which I don’t, or CFI were doing it, which they’re not, I wouldn’t want to do it with you Mike.
You have thrown out some ideas and only just barely taken any feedback about them. I see very little indication of any kind of active listening or engagement in a creative process from you.
As evidence, why not refer to the existing “Atheism” wikipedia page? The way wikipedia works is someone throws up a page, then others edit it and comment on it. There are discussion pages there for that purpose. Are you not happy with that? Do you want to discuss that discussion? I’d be okay with that, but not with starting a whole new discussion, moderated by you.
Lausten,
RE: Post 212
You have a nice website. I can see you have done a lot of work on your website, great job.
I get it that you do not want to work with me personally. Sorry to hear that.
I see very little indication of any kind of active listening or engagement in a creative process from you.
I am learning as I go here. I find the best information or ideas seem to develop when several people are involved in the discussions.
As evidence, why not refer to the existing “Atheism" wikipedia page?
RE: Post 9. Dictionary vs. Wikipedia meaning.
I think as far as Wikipedia, it will need more than a definition. I think a statement of facts will also be needed.
The way wikipedia works is someone throws up a page, then others edit it and comment on it.
Wikipedia posting are several levels above my skills. And I think my thoughts are correct. By posting them here I know they will be tested by people of reason. If I am wrong, then I have learned. I have no issues with being wrong. I always say if you’re not making mistakes, then you’re probably not doing anything. There was only one perfect man, and you know what happened to him. Besides this post is not just about me, I welcome all thought on the subject and enjoy teamwork.
The way wikipedia works is someone throws up a page, then others edit it and comment on it. There are discussion pages there for that purpose. Are you not happy with that? Do you want to discuss that discussion? I’d be okay with that, but not with starting a whole new discussion, moderated by you.
If this posting gets to step four, then we can look at Wikipedia and go thought the steps you are talking about. But, I am not the person who should post on Wikipedia.
We should all try and have fun with this post and enjoy what we are doing.
And thank you Lausten for your postings, if we disagree about some items, that’s OK.
Mike,
I can’t invest the time in wading through any more threads right now. So, will say that I only followed this for a while back when you started it. I have been reading quite a lot elsewhere on CFI though, and am getting familiar with a diversity of atheist viewpoints.
Did you explain Gnosis?
What types of debate did that generate?
Did people ever get past the “straw man” version of God? I.E. Are they still using terms like “a god”, “gods”, “supernatural”, “metaphysics”, “spirit” to explain what Atheism is against?
Is the general trend against thinking in terms of relationship to the Entirety? And related to this, is there any sign of openness to the possibility that “Self awareness” is a universal constant?
I have returned from the land of the “Abrahamic folks”. There, as here, the work was about improving the quality of the conceptualization of God. One that doesn’t have to be merely “believed in” or “not believed in” as the case may be.
Once people step out of theological adolescence into the realm of wisdom. The process of awakening picks up a head of steam. The polarization begins to seem foolish. No matter what words are used to describe the coherence of it all.
There are some voices here that echo this. Others voices seem stubbornly attached to the politics. And of course the letterhead on all the stationary has already been printed.
Perhaps the current Wikipedia article should stand as it is. Maybe in time it will seem like a quaint artifact, along with articles on the elaborate mythologies that percolated out of Flatland. Before we Knew!
Brmckay,
In Post 210 outline of the postings.
The Gnosis was being used like Santa Claus to get a point made.
The term “Belief" was hard to explain. I tried Dr. Terence Meaden’s “Presupposing" idea, but that had its own problems of understanding.
I see now that I should have first use the term “God" then merged in the term “Belief". People have a better understanding of the meaning of “God" than of “Belief".
Did people ever get past the “straw man" version of God? I.E. Are they still using terms like “a god", “gods", “supernatural", “metaphysics", “spirit" to explain what Atheism is against?
We have to stay away from the many meaning of “God" and concentrate on the popular Christian thinking of “God". The Atheist know the Atheist thinking but was mostly unaware of the Christian thinking but once in discussion Atheists are able to easily see the difference between the “Deity" and the “Power of God". Even the churches today push the Son of God over God the Creator.
Is the general trend against thinking in terms of relationship to the Entirety? And related to this, is there any sign of openness to the possibility that “Self awareness" is a universal constant?
There is always the relationship to the Deity being confirmed by the Christians, even though its not the true belief of most Christians. There seems to be enough facts that show the real belief system is in the “Power of God" and a belief that the Pope is the acting god and voice of god on earth is going away.
RE: Self awareness. I think that many believers see the “Power of God" and will not take the step as an Atheist because they think that the “Power of God" can not be believed by Atheists.
Perhaps the current Wikipedia article should stand as it is.
Let’s finish this posting on the Definition of Atheist and see if it will change your mind.
Working Draft of Definition of Atheist
Atheist recognizes Christian stance of God is a twofold point of view divided between the “Deity" and the “Power of God".
Atheist recognizes that in the present day more Christians believe in evolution than creation.
Atheist viewpoint is one that believes Christian’s belief has dualistic conceptualizations of the God.
On the “Deity of God" Atheists do not believe that the supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe does exist.
On the “Power of God" Atheists believe there is a phenomena that exists where Christian thought can create a supposed being of Power derived from the gospels by faith and belief that is perceived to have the ability to create and to destroy, to govern and control the destinies of nations and individuals, to accomplish all his purposes, and to do his will throughout the physical and spiritual universe.
Why do we even have to look at the Definition of Atheist?
Back in 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court repealed all creationist laws. Then in 1991 the intelligent design movement started. And in 2007 the Pope agreed that the scientific proof was in favor of evolution.
The Christian belief is now divided between God’s Creation and God’s Evolution.
The definition of the Atheists needs to also reflect these new changes.
Working Draft of Definition of Atheist
Atheist recognizes Christian stance of God is a twofold point of view divided between the “Deity" and the “Power of God".
Atheist viewpoint is one that believes Christian’s beliefs today has dualistic conceptualizations of the God.
Atheist recognizes that in the present day many Christians believe in evolution.
Creation
On the “Deity of God" Atheists do not believe that the supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe does exist.
Evolution
On the “Power of God" Atheists believe there is a phenomena that exists where Christian thought can create a supposed being of Power derived from the gospels by faith and belief that is perceived to have the ability to create and to destroy, to govern and control the destinies of nations and individuals, to accomplish all his purposes, and to do his will throughout the physical and spiritual universe.
Why do we even have to look at the Definition of Atheist?
Back in 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court repealed all creationist laws. Then in 1991 the intelligent design movement started. And in 2007 the Pope agreed that the scientific proof was in favor of evolution.
The Christian belief is now divided between God’s Creation and God’s Evolution.
The definition of the Atheists needs to also reflect these new changes.
Working Draft of Definition of Atheist
Atheist recognizes Christian stance of God is a twofold point of view divided between the “Deity" and the “Power of God".
Atheist viewpoint is one that believes Christian’s beliefs today has dualistic conceptualizations of the God.
Atheist recognizes that in the present day many Christians believe in God’s Evolution or
God’s Creation.
Creation
On the “Deity of God" Atheists do not believe that the supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe does exist.
Evolution
On the “Power of God" Atheists believe there is a phenomena that exists where Christian thought can create a supposed being of Power derived from the gospels by faith and belief that is perceived to have the ability to create and to destroy, to govern and control the destinies of nations and individuals, to accomplish all his purposes, and to do his will throughout the physical and spiritual universe.
Hi Mike,
I read through the first couple of pages, but not all posts so forgive me if I’m behind in my reply.
It is my understanding that an atheist is one who has seen the evidence and made the choice to believe that no God or gods exist. It is most definitely a belief position rather than a lack of belief since there is no proof either way for the existence of God.
An agnostic is one who doesn’t know if God or gods exist.
Gnostics puts the value on knowledge, but that knowledge may be personal experience or revealed knowledge and not necessarily something proven scientifically or deduced through study and reason. The traditional Christian view values love above knowledge.
Since the teaching of Hinduism and similar beliefs are based on the understanding that all of creation is God and is made from God, they look within to find knowledge and enlightenment since they are a part of God. The Christian view is that the Creator God is separate and distinct form his creation and so the Christian must look outside himself to God to find knowledge. This knowledge is revealed to him by God and does not come from within a man.
They are all faith positions.